<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
On the topic of nominal quantification vs. verbal "quantification",
again I recommend a paper by David Gil:<br>
<br>
<div class="csl-bib-body" style="line-height: 1.35; margin-left:
2em; text-indent:-2em;">
<div class="csl-entry">Gil, David. 1993. Nominal and verbal
quantification. <i>STUF - Language Typology and Universals</i>.
De Gruyter (A) 46(1–4). 275–317. (doi:<a
href="https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.1993.46.14.275">10.1524/stuf.1993.46.14.275</a>)</div>
<span class="Z3988"
title="url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fzotero.org%3A2&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1524%2Fstuf.1993.46.14.275&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Nominal%20and%20verbal%20quantification&rft.jtitle=STUF%20-%20Language%20Typology%20and%20Universals&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=1-4&rft.aufirst=David&rft.aulast=Gil&rft.au=David%20Gil&rft.date=1993-12-01&rft.pages=275-317&rft.spage=275&rft.epage=317&rft.issn=2196-7148&rft.language=en"></span></div>
<br>
But I don't understand what is meant by "unified linguistic concept"
of quantification:<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.03.22 um 11:47 schrieb Christian
Lehmann:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2fac6ad2-dcf6-ca05-b70e-13dc3c4137a9@uni-erfurt.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
This being said, I confirm that Martin understood my concern: to
reasonably structure (in terms of linguistic semantics) a
(functionally based!) chapter on quantification. Among the many
useful hints I obtained from the discussion, one continues to vex
me: It is true that 'times' may be quantified (e.g. in English <i>sometimes</i>)
similarly to things and persons. Does this mean that there is a
unified <u>linguistic</u> concept of quantification which
includes events/situations (whichever you prefer)? Some of us
subsume notions like 'intensification', 'attenuation', 'partial
completion' etc. under quantification. Are there arguments from
linguistic structure to conclude that this is quantification (of
some kind of entity) in the same sense as <i>some of her children
became professors</i> involves quantification (in the
descriptive tradition of the last two and a half millennia )?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It seems to me that grammatically, nominal quantifiers behave VERY
differently in many languages – this is a central point of Gil
(2001) and it was made earlier in this thread.<br>
<br>
Verbal quantifiers are similar: They behave differently in different
languages, but notionally or functionally, they are not different:
"throwing twice/often" is the same as "two/many events of throwing".
Note also that quantification can be done by quantifiers (= free
forms) or by bound elements (clitics and affixes), both in nominal
expressions and in verbal event expressions. A
frequentative/iterative verbal affix is very similar to a nominal
plural affix (on verbal plurality, see also Simone Mattiola's 2019
book on pluractional constructions).<br>
<br>
There is a clear coding difference with cardinal numerals, though:
Many or most languages do not have "nominal numeral classifiers",
but most or all languages have "event numeral classifiers":<br>
<br>
English: <i>on-ce, twi-ce, four times, ...</i><br>
French: <i>une fois, deux fois, quatre fois, ...</i><br>
Russian: <i>odna-ždy, dva-ždy, četyre raza, ...</i><br>
<br>
Elements like "times/fois/raza" are not normally called "numeral
classifiers", but they are just as empty semantically as (most)
nominal numeral classifiers – they just serve to indicate that it's
an event that is being enumerated, not a nominal referent. It seems
that there's an implicational scale of the following type:<br>
<br>
currency unit > physical object > human > event<br>
<br>
Some languages use numeral classifiers for all of these, and some
only for a right-hand segment of the scale. Currency units are
probably the most likely to be counted, so they need the numerative
marker less than other types of entities (this is based on
forthcoming work by Christoph Holz).<br>
<br>
Thus, in line with the tradition (Bach et al. 1995, Keenan &
Paperno, Gil, etc.), I would say that "quantification" cuts across
the object/event distinction, also for the typological reasons given
above. <br>
<br>
(It's less clear whether <i>pluractionality</i> should be said to
be a type of "plurality" – there does not seem to be stability in
linguists' usage.)<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<font size="2">P.S. Note that the term "quantifier" is not
transparent: A <i>quantifier</i> is a free form for indicating
quantity (Gil 2001: 1275), but bound forms that indicate quantity
such as plural markers are not quantifiers. Note also that
"quantifiers" in logic are something rather different from
quantifiers in languages.</font><br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/">https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/</a></pre>
</body>
</html>